Subject:
|
Re: Question: Are reviews of non-LEGO (such as Mega Blocks) sets of interest?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 3 Mar 1999 15:16:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
800 times
|
| |
|
|
My general opinion: all in all, RTL is the most appropriate place to
post reviews of clone sets. Todd has set up lugnet to be LEGO-specific,
so posting clone discussion (except when comparing to LEGO) is not
appropriate. And putting in an .off-topic.clone group doesn't really
fit the subject, either. RTL is much more appropriate -- it even has
'compatible' in its charter.
Steve
On Wed, 3 Mar 1999 05:58:19 GMT, lehman@javanet.com (Todd Lehman) wrote:
> [Crossposted to lugnet.reviews & lugnet.admin.general, with followups
> set to lugnet.admin.general]
>
>
> In lugnet.reviews, lighthouse@bonzai.net (Janet Zorn) writes:
> > I doubt that .reviews will get deluged with clone reviews. Lego makes
> > probably as many sets as all the clones combined, and few here will
> > buy clones to be able to review them. For those few of us who from
> > time to time indulge in buying on the megacheap .reviews would be a
> > better place to read a few reviews once in a great while (there's not
> > alot of traffic here anyway) rather than to have to wade thru all the
> > stuff in .off-topic.fun.
>
> Janet,
> Do you think a new newsgroup
>
> lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands
>
> would be useful? Here is a related thread for more background:
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.general:2307
>
>
> > That's my appeal. Of course, we'll abide by whatever ruling.
>
> What we don't want to happen is the .reviews group being used to review
> individual sets from clone brands like Mega-Bloks, Best-Lock, etc. (Blyecch,
> poison!)
>
> If someone wanted to do a high-level comparison of LEGO® vs. various imitation
> brands, that's a bit of a different story.
>
> Looking back at the brief charter/mission statement for this .reviews group,
>
> "Formal and informal reviews of building sets, games, web sites, etc."
>
> it doesn't explicitly prohibit reviews clone brands, but like almost all the
> groups here, the underlying assumption (which we apologize for not stating
> more clearly from the outset) is that lugnet.com is dedicated to LEGO® and not
> to clone/imitation brands or other construction toys. The meaning of the
> charter for .reviews really is:
>
> "Formal and informal reviews of LEGO® brand building sets, LEGO® brand
> games, original games arising out of or in connection with LEGO® brand
> toys, LEGO® fan web sites, official LEGO® web sites, etc."
>
> I always just figured that clone brands wouldn't come up here -- except in
> pejorative contexts -- because almost all LEGO® fans tend to be purists. But
> if there is a desire for people to share information about clone brands in the
> groups here, then I think it would be best to create a separate area to gobble
> up these unwanted discussions -- just like the other areas (.debate, .fun,
> .test) of the .off-topic hierarchy.
>
> The purpose of the .off-topic hierarchy is to allow people to talk openly
> about non-LEGO® things without having to leave the community altogether to
> carry on the discussions. Fair enough?
>
> --Todd
>
>
> p.s. Hee hee, while spell-checking this article (I hit cancel in the middle
> so I could add this), my spell-checker suggested "Measles" as a replacement
> for "Mega-Bloks." :I
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
